CUI-01 and Open Issues

["Nelson, David" <dnelson@enterasys.com>]

In reviewing draft-ietf-radext-chargeable-user-id-01.txt against my open
issues on the RADEXT Issues Tracker, I observe the following:


Issue 35.

This issue can be closed.  The proposed resolution was not used, but the
relevant draft section was completely re-written.


Issue 36.

(1) The request was to change the CUI attribute to Chargeable-User-ID
attribute.  The 01 draft uses the Chargeable-User-Identity attribute,
which is probably close enough.  Classical RADIUS RFC usage is to
abbreviate Identity or Identifier as ID, but...  This sub-issue can
probably be closed.

(2) Done.  This sub-issue can be closed.

(3) Uhhh...  The CUI-Type field was written out of the 01 draft, so this
issue is no longer relevant.  This sub-issue can be closed.

(4) Done.  This sub-issue can be closed.

The entire Issue 36 can therefore be closed.


Issue 46.

This issue cannot be closed.  While the relevant section was re-written
in the 01 draft such that the format of the CUI is "indeterminate" i.e.
to be determined by business arrangements outside the scope of
standardization, the underlying issues of transparency vs. opacity and
usable semantic content vs. opaque cookie have not yet been resolved on
the WG mailing list.  The text in the 01 draft attempts to dodge these
issues by avoiding any specific characterization of the data payload of
CUI.



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>